ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Harnessing meta-analyses' insights in ecology and evolution research.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drivers of Taxonomic Bias in Ecology and Evolution: Insights From Ethologists and Behavioural Ecologists.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Harnessing meta-analyses' insights in ecology and evolution research.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Reliability of meta-analyses in ecology and evolution: (mostly) good news from a case study on sexual signals.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-analyses are powerful tools to synthesize the literature in several fields of study, including ecology and evolution. However, it remains uncertain whether ecologists and evolutionary biologists fully comprehend meta-analyses' findings or effectively apply them when citing these studies in their own research. Here, we first discuss key meta-analytical concepts and provide a guide to researchers in ecology and evolution on how to harness meta-analyses' insights. For instance, we clarify the meaning of effect sizes and heterogeneity to improve understanding of meta-analyses' quantitative findings. In addition, we analysed articles published in 2023 in ecology and evolution to investigate how frequently and in what context meta-analyses were cited. We found that approximately 21% of articles cited at least one meta-analysis, and that the relative number of citations of meta-analyses (0.62% of all citations analysed) was greater than the publication frequency of meta-analytical articles (0.44% of all articles). Most importantly, we found that while the direction of mean effect sizes from cited meta-analyses was often mentioned, the magnitude of effect sizes and the limitations of the data analysed were frequently overlooked. These findings underscore the need for improved citation practices of meta-analyses in ecological and evolutionary research, which our recommendations seek to promote.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.